RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01166
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 October 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  general  (under  honorable  conditions)  discharge   be   upgraded   to
honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She is trying to obtain a VA Student College loan.   The  military  made  it
look like she was fired but  she  had  to  quit.   She  must  have  been  an
excellent employee while in the military since they tried  to  convince  her
to enlist in the Air Force Reserve.

Applicant submits  no  supporting  documentation.   Her  application  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the  grade  of  airman
basic (E-1) on 26 September  1983.   Applicant  was  enrolled  in  Technical
Training.

On 27 January 1984, applicant was counseled concerning personal problems.

On 5 March 1984 and 15  May  1984,  applicant  was  referred  to  the  Human
Development Center for evaluation.  No evidence of psychiatric disorder  was
found.

On 7 March 1984, applicant was counseled for slow progression in Block II.

On 13 March 1984, applicant was counseled for  failing  to  salute  a  staff
car.

On 15, 16, and 17 May 1984, applicant was counseled for refusing  to  accept
further training and expressing a  desire  to  be  separated  from  the  Air
Force.  On 18 May 1984, she received a letter of reprimand for the same.

On 25 May 1984, applicant was notified by her commander that  in  accordance
with AFR 39-10, paragraph 5.26.1  she  was  recommending  the  applicant  be
discharged from the Air Force with her  service  characterized  as  general.
The specific reason for  the  commander's  action  was  that  the  applicant
failed to  make  progress  in  a  required  training  program  in  that  she
willfully refused to attend class for further  technical  training  and  was
eliminated for prejudicial conduct.

The applicant was advised of her  rights  in  this  matter.   The  applicant
acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification  on  that  same  date  and  the
commander initiated discharge proceedings.  The applicant waived  her  right
to counsel and to submit statements on her own behalf.

In a legal review of  the  discharge  case  file,  the  acting  staff  judge
advocate, found it legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant  be
discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge.   On  30  May  1984,
the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged  from  the
Air Force with a general discharge  without  probation  and  rehabilitation.
Accordingly, applicant was discharged on 1  June  1984  for  “Unsatisfactory
Performance” with an RE code of 2B, “Separated  with  a  general  or  under-
other-than-honorable  conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge.”   She  had  served  8
months and 6 days on active duty.

Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI),
Clarksburg, WV, indicated that on the basis  of  the  data  furnished,  they
were unable to locate an arrest record.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS  states  that  based
on the documentation on file in the master personnel records, the  discharge
was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge regulation.  The AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 6 May 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to the  applicant
for review and response.  As of this date, this office has  not  received  a
response.

On 31 May 2005, in response to the  post-service  letter,  applicant  stated
she has an  excellent  credit  rating  and  her  driving  record  is  clean.
Additionally, applicant states she is  very  active  in  her  community  and
submits two character reference letters (See Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
available records, the majority of the Board found the  applicant  did  not
provide persuasive evidence showing the information in the  discharge  case
was erroneous, her substantial rights were violated, or that her commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  The applicant’s contentions are duly
noted;  however,  the  Board  majority  believes  the  characterization  of
discharge which was  issued  at  the  time  of  her  separation  accurately
reflects the circumstances of her separation and the majority of the  Board
does not find the characterization of her  discharge  to  be  in  error  or
unjust.   We  have  noted  the  supportive  statements  provided   in   the
applicant’s behalf; however, in the opinion of the majority of  the  Board,
the cited statements are not of a sufficient quality or quantity to support
approval of the requested relief based on clemency in  view  of  the  short
period of time the applicant served on active duty.  Therefore, a  majority
of the Board finds no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 25 August 2005 and 12 September 2005,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
            Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
            Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member


By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.   Mr.
Petkoff voted to correct the record as requested but did not wish to  submit
a minority report.  The following documentary  evidence  for  AFBCMR  Docket
Number BC-2005-01166 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 05.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 29 Apr 05.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 19 May 05, w/atch.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, not dated, w/atchs.




                                  GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2005-01166


MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.



                                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                                       Director
                                                       Air Force Review
                 Boards Agency




                   MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                   FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Case on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AFBCMR: BC-2005-01166

      After considering the evidence available for my review, I agree with
the minority member of the panel that the applicant’s request that her
general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable
should be granted.

      While the applicant’s general discharge may have been appropriate
based on regulations in effect at the time, I find the characterization of
discharge too harsh based on the minor offenses she committed.  Since it
would serve no useful purpose to the Air Force or to society in general to
continue the nature of her discharge at this late date and since it is
apparent that she has been a responsible citizen following her separation,
it is my decision that the characterization of her discharge should be
upgraded to fully honorable as a matter of equity and on the basis of
clemency.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency




AFBCMR BC-2005-01166



MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that on 1 June
1984, she was honorably discharged and furnished an Honorable Discharge
certificate.





  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency